4 ms·

"As of 2010 however, 1.33 million people or 14.3% of the inhabitants in Sweden were foreign-born." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Sweden http://en.

by sebcat 14y ago

"As of 2010 however, 1.33 million people or 14.3% of the inhabitants in Sweden were foreign-born." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Sweden http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Sweden The equivalent number of foreign-born citizens in the US is 13% according to http://www.census.gov/population/foreign/ http://www.census.gov/population/foreign/

cobrausn 14y ago
The 'native born' citizenry of the US is hardly what I'd call 'homogeneous'.
doktrin 14y ago
Is that a like for like comparison? In Sweden, percentage of foreign born may paint a relatively accurate picture of homogeneity, whereas the same is not true in the US. Mass - immigration is very recent for the former, but not for the latter.
- sebcat 14y ago
  I don't know if it is. I think it can be, but it's not just about who's foreign born. It's an interesting subject. The US has been formed by immigration. Though at some point you should be considered assimilated. If my grand-grand parents emigrated to the US, are their descendants still Swedish? What about my grand-parents? What about my parents? What about me? From a generational standpoint that is. I would say most parts of the US is very homogeneous. It's just that it's very segregated. Based on race and class. You don't see a lot of rich Caucasians in Compton. I think homogeneity is about community. About feeling related. Relating to others. Empathy. State of mind. Speaking a different language than the rest is definitely a barrier. But learning a new language doesn't take that long if you're being accepted by the community. Integration. Immigration is not new to Sweden. Sweden is not a country built on immigration like the US, but I dare say that people have immigrated here for at least a couple of millennia. Look at the big picture. The native Americans immigrated too. All swedes did too. Is origin important, or assimilation/integration?
- pc86 14y ago
  Not only that, but someone born and raised in Los Angeles is going to have nothing in common with someone born in Oregon, or Tennessee, or Michigan, or Vermont.
  - vacri 14y ago
    What? Not even speaking English?
  - legitsource 14y ago
    Someone born and raised in New York City probably doesn't have that much in common with someone from upstate New York either.
  - _delirium 14y ago
    Really? I was born and grew up in a suburb of Chicago, but have since then lived in Los Angeles, Houston, Atlanta, and a few other places, and have rarely felt that my born-in-Chicagoness was at all an important or a distinguishing factor. There are Americans I don't have a lot in common with, but it doesn't have much to do with where we were born. For example, I don't tend to get along with people who have anti-intellectual views, but you find those (and their opposite) anywhere. I think of myself as "American", but I would be hard-pressed to think of anything particularly "Chicagoan" about me. It'd be something trivial like hot-dog or pizza preference, probably. As far as geography goes, I see more differences within than between regions. I don't have a lot in common with people who live in very rural areas, for example. But e.g. a coffee shop in Midtown Atlanta doesn't feel that much different from a coffee shop in Brooklyn or Westwood. And the Atlanta suburbs don't feel that different from the Chicago suburbs.
seabee 14y ago
The point I infer from your post is only valid if all second-generation+ immigrants are fully assimilated into the country's majority culture. The existence of various racial and geographical cultures would go against this theory.
jandrewrogers 14y ago
It is not just a matter of being foreign born. The US is a very large country and different regions have markedly different cultures and societies with their own histories. Some of these regional cultures have a long history of not being able to cooperate, which is part of why the Federal government is often dysfunctional. There is a tendency to treat the US as a homogeneous culture when it is far from it in practice. Despite a common language and currency, there is probably a greater cultural distance between e.g. the Pacific Northwest and deep South in the US than there is between many European countries. People identify with their regional culture, whether it is Southern, Cascadian (aka Pacific Northwest), New England, the Sagebrush (aka Mountain states), Midwest, or California.
- sebcat 14y ago
  I'm not saying the US is homogeneous, I'm saying it's not all about immigration, it's about integration and assimilation as well. "there is probably a greater cultural distance between e.g. the Pacific Northwest and deep South in the US than there is between many European countries" Right. Making a comparison to the countries in the Balkans is very interesting here.
- purplelobster 14y ago
  This is laughable. I (surprisingly) see just as many regional differences within a single European country as in the US. For example, people from Gothenburg can't stand people from Stockholm, dialects and customs vary greatly. People very much identify with the region they're from. I'm from an island that historically had much German and Danish influence, hence it has it's own language (almost died out though) and very peculiar dialect. The island has its own customs, food even sports. Many people from the middle or north have trouble even understanding southerners, especially those with a rural dialect. The south also used to be part of Denmark for many hundreds of years which is partly why they have such a strange dialect. Sweden has its own indigenous people called Samer that live in the north, which have their own language. Sweden has a history spanning more than 1000 years, with vikings, invasions, kings and empire. Wherever you go in Europe, you'll see the same but EVEN MORE diverse. It seems you haven't really been to Europe much, or you wouldn't say something so hilariously wrong. On the other hand, I'm European, and have lived in 3 different US states and visited maybe 15. Whatever regional difference within the US that you are talking about is largely urban vs. rural, but the culture itself has become a blend of whoever immigrated, but there are only small remnants left of that. The US is largely a homogeneous country in my eyes, people move cross states here way more often than people do in Europe, because in Europe you'll get genuine culture shock, if you can even understand the language. Laughable...
juiceandjuice 14y ago
If you've ever traveled across the country, you'd realize people in Seattle are much different than people in Phoenix who are much different than people in St Louis who are much different than people in Boston who are much different than people in Atlanta who are much different than people in Honolulu. You could easily the population of Kansas is as different from the population of California as Colombia is different than the population of Argentina, so I don't think "foreign-born" is a good metric for heterogeneity in the context of this question.

by sebcat 14y ago

cobrausn 14y ago

The 'native born' citizenry of the US is hardly what I'd call 'homogeneous'.

doktrin 14y ago

Is that a like for like comparison? In Sweden, percentage of foreign born may paint a relatively accurate picture of homogeneity, whereas the same is not true in the US. Mass - immigration is very recent for the former, but not for the latter.

sebcat 14y ago
I don't know if it is. I think it can be, but it's not just about who's foreign born. It's an interesting subject. The US has been formed by immigration. Though at some point you should be considered assimilated. If my grand-grand parents emigrated to the US, are their descendants still Swedish? What about my grand-parents? What about my parents? What about me? From a generational standpoint that is. I would say most parts of the US is very homogeneous. It's just that it's very segregated. Based on race and class. You don't see a lot of rich Caucasians in Compton. I think homogeneity is about community. About feeling related. Relating to others. Empathy. State of mind. Speaking a different language than the rest is definitely a barrier. But learning a new language doesn't take that long if you're being accepted by the community. Integration. Immigration is not new to Sweden. Sweden is not a country built on immigration like the US, but I dare say that people have immigrated here for at least a couple of millennia. Look at the big picture. The native Americans immigrated too. All swedes did too. Is origin important, or assimilation/integration?
pc86 14y ago
Not only that, but someone born and raised in Los Angeles is going to have nothing in common with someone born in Oregon, or Tennessee, or Michigan, or Vermont.
- vacri 14y ago
  What? Not even speaking English?
- legitsource 14y ago
  Someone born and raised in New York City probably doesn't have that much in common with someone from upstate New York either.
- _delirium 14y ago
  Really? I was born and grew up in a suburb of Chicago, but have since then lived in Los Angeles, Houston, Atlanta, and a few other places, and have rarely felt that my born-in-Chicagoness was at all an important or a distinguishing factor. There are Americans I don't have a lot in common with, but it doesn't have much to do with where we were born. For example, I don't tend to get along with people who have anti-intellectual views, but you find those (and their opposite) anywhere. I think of myself as "American", but I would be hard-pressed to think of anything particularly "Chicagoan" about me. It'd be something trivial like hot-dog or pizza preference, probably. As far as geography goes, I see more differences within than between regions. I don't have a lot in common with people who live in very rural areas, for example. But e.g. a coffee shop in Midtown Atlanta doesn't feel that much different from a coffee shop in Brooklyn or Westwood. And the Atlanta suburbs don't feel that different from the Chicago suburbs.

seabee 14y ago

The point I infer from your post is only valid if all second-generation+ immigrants are fully assimilated into the country's majority culture. The existence of various racial and geographical cultures would go against this theory.

jandrewrogers 14y ago

It is not just a matter of being foreign born. The US is a very large country and different regions have markedly different cultures and societies with their own histories. Some of these regional cultures have a long history of not being able to cooperate, which is part of why the Federal government is often dysfunctional. There is a tendency to treat the US as a homogeneous culture when it is far from it in practice. Despite a common language and currency, there is probably a greater cultural distance between e.g. the Pacific Northwest and deep South in the US than there is between many European countries. People identify with their regional culture, whether it is Southern, Cascadian (aka Pacific Northwest), New England, the Sagebrush (aka Mountain states), Midwest, or California.

sebcat 14y ago
I'm not saying the US is homogeneous, I'm saying it's not all about immigration, it's about integration and assimilation as well. "there is probably a greater cultural distance between e.g. the Pacific Northwest and deep South in the US than there is between many European countries" Right. Making a comparison to the countries in the Balkans is very interesting here.
purplelobster 14y ago
This is laughable. I (surprisingly) see just as many regional differences within a single European country as in the US. For example, people from Gothenburg can't stand people from Stockholm, dialects and customs vary greatly. People very much identify with the region they're from. I'm from an island that historically had much German and Danish influence, hence it has it's own language (almost died out though) and very peculiar dialect. The island has its own customs, food even sports. Many people from the middle or north have trouble even understanding southerners, especially those with a rural dialect. The south also used to be part of Denmark for many hundreds of years which is partly why they have such a strange dialect. Sweden has its own indigenous people called Samer that live in the north, which have their own language. Sweden has a history spanning more than 1000 years, with vikings, invasions, kings and empire. Wherever you go in Europe, you'll see the same but EVEN MORE diverse. It seems you haven't really been to Europe much, or you wouldn't say something so hilariously wrong. On the other hand, I'm European, and have lived in 3 different US states and visited maybe 15. Whatever regional difference within the US that you are talking about is largely urban vs. rural, but the culture itself has become a blend of whoever immigrated, but there are only small remnants left of that. The US is largely a homogeneous country in my eyes, people move cross states here way more often than people do in Europe, because in Europe you'll get genuine culture shock, if you can even understand the language. Laughable...

juiceandjuice 14y ago

If you've ever traveled across the country, you'd realize people in Seattle are much different than people in Phoenix who are much different than people in St Louis who are much different than people in Boston who are much different than people in Atlanta who are much different than people in Honolulu. You could easily the population of Kansas is as different from the population of California as Colombia is different than the population of Argentina, so I don't think "foreign-born" is a good metric for heterogeneity in the context of this question.